United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

[Ramlaen]

 

[Ramlaen]

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/412501/maximum-mission-awareness-transit

[Ramlaen]

 

This appears to be a change Oshkosh is making for the contract recompete.

 

"“While the U.S. Army has not requested a hybrid-electric JLTV as part of the JLTV recompete, the eJLTV proves that Oshkosh Defense has the team and technical capabilities to produce this highly capable vehicle today,” Bryant concluded."

 

 

[Ramlaen]

The Oshkosh press release says that the eJLTV is derived from their Light Combat Tactical Vehicle which uses their ProPulse system.

 

https://oshkoshdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ProPulse_SS_6-13-11.pdf

 

•Diesel engine powers a large electric generator which distributes power to each axle module
•Each axle module is driven independently by a dedicated motor controlled from its own power converter, thus providing redundancy

[Ramlaen]

The FY2021 DOT&E annual report is out, the one for the ISV is reaaallllly not flattering.

[LoooSeR]

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The FY2021 DOT&E annual report is out, the one for the ISV is reaaallllly not flattering.

Interesting note - are quadbikes or smaller byggies better in this role? Our VDV tested bunch of those.

[Hal]

13 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The FY2021 DOT&E annual report is out, the one for the ISV is reaaallllly not flattering.

If it's the report I read, they basically called it a failure because it could not transport a squad in perfect silence, with complete protection from any and all arms, at 100kph, with perfect reliability. I didn't notice if they thought it was over priced as well...

[Ramlaen]

3 hours ago, Hal said:

If it's the report I read, they basically called it a failure because it could not transport a squad in perfect silence, with complete protection from any and all arms, at 100kph, with perfect reliability. I didn't notice if they thought it was over priced as well...

 

I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting/downplaying what was said in it. Here is a snippet.

 

The ISV is not operationally effective for employment in combat and ESD missions against a near-peer threat, as identified in the Validated Online Lifecycle Threat report. The vehicle lacks the capability to deliver effective fires, provide reliable communication, and force protection. The rifle company equipped with the ISVs did not successfully avoid enemy detection, ambushes, and engagements during a majority of their missions. In order to traverse cross country routes and wooded terrain, the unit was forced to reduce their speed, resulting in slowed movement, or maneuvered on improved routes, negating any element of surprise. During missions, the unit experienced numerous casualties, delaying mission accomplishment and degrading its combat power for follow-on missions. The unit concealed their ISVs and drivers close to the objective and dismounted eight soldiers per vehicle to accomplish missions before recovering their ISVs. This action reduced their combat force, exposed the ISVs and drivers to opposing force attacks, and increased the risk of additional combat losses.
During missions, personal weapons were not easily accessible on the move, degrading the ability of the squad to quickly react to enemy actions and ambushes. While the ISV can mount a swing arm for an M240 machine gun, the ability for the soldier to efficiently employ the weapon on the move was a challenge because the soldier’s field of fire was hindered by trees, foliage, and other obstructions when extending the swing mount. Protracting the swing mount also interfered with seated soldier egress from vehicle.

Communication between soldiers, squad leaders, and platoon leader were intermittent and not reliable on the move, degrading their ability to gain and maintain situational awareness at extended range mission between 62 to 300 miles. The ISV does not have a requirement for a mounted communication capability, so each platoon depended on their manpack and leader radios.

The ISV lacks the capability to carry the required mission equipment, supplies, and water for a unit to sustain itself within a 72-hour period. Units operating for longer durations will need to conduct mission planning, cross level-equipment across the unit, or may require additional ISVs to sustain operations.

[Hal]

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting/downplaying what was said in it. Here is a snippet.

 

The ISV is not operationally effective for employment in combat and ESD missions against a near-peer threat, as identified in the Validated Online Lifecycle Threat report. The vehicle lacks the capability to deliver effective fires, provide reliable communication, and force protection. The rifle company equipped with the ISVs did not successfully avoid enemy detection, ambushes, and engagements during a majority of their missions. In order to traverse cross country routes and wooded terrain, the unit was forced to reduce their speed, resulting in slowed movement, or maneuvered on improved routes, negating any element of surprise. During missions, the unit experienced numerous casualties, delaying mission accomplishment and degrading its combat power for follow-on missions. The unit concealed their ISVs and drivers close to the objective and dismounted eight soldiers per vehicle to accomplish missions before recovering their ISVs. This action reduced their combat force, exposed the ISVs and drivers to opposing force attacks, and increased the risk of additional combat losses.
During missions, personal weapons were not easily accessible on the move, degrading the ability of the squad to quickly react to enemy actions and ambushes. While the ISV can mount a swing arm for an M240 machine gun, the ability for the soldier to efficiently employ the weapon on the move was a challenge because the soldier’s field of fire was hindered by trees, foliage, and other obstructions when extending the swing mount. Protracting the swing mount also interfered with seated soldier egress from vehicle.

Communication between soldiers, squad leaders, and platoon leader were intermittent and not reliable on the move, degrading their ability to gain and maintain situational awareness at extended range mission between 62 to 300 miles. The ISV does not have a requirement for a mounted communication capability, so each platoon depended on their manpack and leader radios.

The ISV lacks the capability to carry the required mission equipment, supplies, and water for a unit to sustain itself within a 72-hour period. Units operating for longer durations will need to conduct mission planning, cross level-equipment across the unit, or may require additional ISVs to sustain operations.

Not downplaying anything. This is a truck with slightly better than average off road capability, at a relatively low price (because it was adapted from a civilian model). That all it is supposed to be, a truck, a replacement for walking. It does that.

[TokyoMorose]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:11 PM, Hal said:

Not downplaying anything. This is a truck with slightly better than average off road capability, at a relatively low price (because it was adapted from a civilian model). That all it is supposed to be, a truck, a replacement for walking. It does that.

 

But it's oddly not a truck - a real off-the-shelf SUV or truck would be even cheaper and not have the horrible seats, while not being totally open to the environment.

 

It's a strange semi-custom job that is more expensive than just buying pure off the shelf machines for low-intensity work, and is awful in doing anything you couldn't reasonably do with a off-the-shelf softroader. They had to give up testing at Yuma due to constant breakdowns and broken parts, and sure it may have passed at bragg's flat woodland course... but so could almost any modern off-the-shelf truck or SUV. Why not just send the military CUCV'd Chevy trailblazers? It's literally the off-the-shelf SUV version of the 31XX chassis that the ISV is built from.

 

And yes, the fact that a basic truck/SUV is basically going to be a free target for literally anything in a high-intensity conflict shouldn't be surprising nor really a fault of it. But it's this strange "more-than-truck, less-than-HMMWV/JLTV" oddity.

 

On 1/28/2022 at 12:30 AM, LoooSeR said:

Interesting note - are quadbikes or smaller byggies better in this role? Our VDV tested bunch of those.

 

SOCOM uses a buggy for the role as well, the GD Flyer - it also competed with the GM offering for the ISV but lost on cost grounds being a clean-sheet vehicle instead of the 90% COTS GM proposal.

[Wiedzmin]

 

M1A1/2 turret base structure...maybe....

[Ramlaen]

A4 Bradleys

 

https://www.facebook.com/2ABCT.3ID/videos/324313002957370/

[N-L-M]

https://m.facebook.com/100007271371085/posts/2983147658604251/?sfnsn=mo

The COV, a very rare vehicle we discussed here a while back, was in fact located in the Levant when I found it, and is now being transferred to Latrun to be put on display.

 

And by a while back I mean over 2 years. How time flies.

https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1462-united-states-military-vehicle-general-guns-gvins-and-gas-turbines/?do=findComment&comment=158790

[Ramlaen]

 

[Ramlaen]

 

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

BAE is out of MPF. Kind of shocking.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

 

Much better looking.

http://liberty-omfv.com/

[Laser Shark]

2 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

BAE is out of MPF. Kind of shocking.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition

 

[Ramlaen]

2 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

BAE is out of MPF. Kind of shocking.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition

 

Babrams it is then.

[TokyoMorose]

3 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

BAE is out of MPF. Kind of shocking.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition

 

I see GDLS still manages to keep up their impressive DoD relations / DC lobbyist effort.

 

You'd think after how many times they had to redo the stryker and with their current global scandals it'd change things but nope.

 

I am curious though, how is a 34.5 tonne, MBT-sized vehicle requiring M88 Hercules wreckers and M1070 HET transporters to be added to the TO&E *more compliant?!?!*. What buzzword did the XM8++ not have?

[Ramlaen]

6 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I see GDLS still manages to keep up their impressive DoD relations / DC lobbyist effort.

 

You'd think after how many times they had to redo the stryker and with their current global scandals it'd change things but nope.

 

I am curious though, how is a 34.5 tonne, MBT-sized vehicle requiring M88 Hercules wreckers and M1070 HET transporters to be added to the TO&E *more compliant?!?!*. What buzzword did the XM8++ not have?

 

GDLS isn't going to win because their lobbyists are better, they didn't have to "redo" the Stryker and the issues with the Ajax (made by GDUK) are irrelevant.

[Serge]

4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I see GDLS still manages to keep up their impressive DoD relations / DC lobbyist effort.

 

You'd think after how many times they had to redo the stryker and with their current global scandals it'd change things but nope.

 

I am curious though, how is a 34.5 tonne, MBT-sized vehicle requiring M88 Hercules wreckers and M1070 HET transporters to be added to the TO&E *more compliant?!?!*. What buzzword did the XM8++ not have?

Maybe, an MPF QRV can be developed and even can be used to support Bradley. 

[Ramlaen]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/02/25/proposed-light-tank-battalion-concept-will-require-more-armor-crewmen/

Current plans call for the MPF battalion to reside at the division level. It will then farm out companies to each brigade, said Christopher Stone, deputy director of the Army’s capability manager for the infantry brigade combat team.
Stone spoke at the 2022 Maneuver Warfighter Conference at Fort Benning, Georgia on Feb. 16.
"The MPF company looks and smells like a tank company,” Stone said.

 

As someone pointed out to me on discord this sounds a lot like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_tank_battalion

 

Though it does not resolve the issue of needing M88 as recovery vehicles now that GDLS is the sole bidder.

[Ramlaen]

On 3/2/2022 at 9:13 PM, Serge said:

Maybe, an MPF QRV can be developed and even can be used to support Bradley. 

 

Perhaps the lack of such an option is what made BAE noncompliant?

[Serge]

On 3/4/2022 at 7:37 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

Perhaps the lack of such an option is what made BAE noncompliant?

I don’t know. 
I truly believe there’s a market for such a light plateforme.